1 / 24

Throughput Characteristics of Free-Space-Optical Mobile Ad-hoc Networks

Mehmet Bilgi and Murat Yuksel { mbilgi,yuksem}@cse.unr.edu Computer Science and Engineering University of Nevada – Reno Project Website: http://www.cse.unr.edu/~yuksem/fso-manet.htm. Throughput Characteristics of Free-Space-Optical Mobile Ad-hoc Networks. Collaborators. Faculty:

jdominic
Download Presentation

Throughput Characteristics of Free-Space-Optical Mobile Ad-hoc Networks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Mehmet Bilgi and Murat Yuksel {mbilgi,yuksem}@cse.unr.edu Computer Science and Engineering University of Nevada – Reno Project Website: http://www.cse.unr.edu/~yuksem/fso-manet.htm Throughput Characteristics of Free-Space-Optical Mobile Ad-hoc Networks

  2. Collaborators • Faculty: • Murat Yuksel (yuksem@cse.unr.edu), Univ. of Nevada, Reno • Mona Hella (hellam@ecse.rpi.edu), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute • Students: • Abdullah Sevincer (asev@cse.unr.edu) (M.S.), UNR • Mehmet Bilgi (mbilgi@cse.unr.edu) (Ph.D.), UNR • Michelle Ramirez (beemyladybug1@yahoo.com) (B.S.), UNR

  3. Outline • Motivation & Vision • FSO Simulation Modules • FSO Propagation • LOS Alignment Protocol • Validation Simulations • Throughput Simulations • Summary and Conclusions

  4. Wireless: Spectrum Constraints Source: Chris Ramming/DARPA: CBMANETS overview

  5. Dense Deployment: No Help Beyond a Point • As we add more RF nodes, per-node throughput diminishes • Dense deployment of many omni-directional antennas increase interference • sqrt(N)as N increases (Gupta, Kumar, Tran. on Inf. Theo. 2000)‏ • Can become linear with hierarchical cooperative MIMO imposing constraints on topology and mobility pattern (Ozgur et al., Tran. on Inf. Theo. 2006)‏ • None is able to totally eliminate the scaling problem The RF spectrum is getting saturated.. We need alternative communication spectrum resources.

  6. Free-Space-Optical (FSO): open spectrum • Open spectrum: 2.4GHz, 5.8GHz, 60GHz, > 300 GHz • Lots of open spectrum up in the optical regime! • FSO usage: • point-to-point links • interconnects • indoor infrared communications • DoD use of FSO: • Satellite communications • DARPA ORCL project: air-to-ground, air-to-air, air-to-satellite 802.11a/g, 802.16e, Cellular (2G/3G)‏

  7. Optical Wireless: Commodity components LEDs… VCSELs… IrDAs… Lasers… Many FSO components are very low cost and available for mass production.

  8. Free-Space-Optical Ad Hoc Networks FSO-MANETs Vision Free-Space-Optical (FSO) Communications Mobile Ad-Hoc Networking • High bandwidth • Low power • Dense spatial reuse • License-free band of operation • Mobile communication • Auto-configuration • Spatial reuse and angular diversity in nodes • Low power and secure • Electronic auto-alignment • Optical auto-configuration (switching, routing)‏

  9. Optical Wireless: Why? • Positive points: • More Secure: Highly directional + small size & weight => low probability of interception (LPI)‏ • High-brightness LEDs (HBLEDs) are very low cost and highly reliable components • 35-65 cents a piece, and $2-$5 per transceiver package + upto 10 years lifetime • Very low power consumption (100 microwatts for 10-100 Mbps!)‏ • Even lower power for 1-10 Mbps • 4-5 orders of magnitude improvement in energy/bit compared to RF • Huge spatial reuse => multiple parallel channels for huge bandwidth increases due to spectral efficiency • Issues: • Need line-of-sight (LOS); and alignment of LOS Can we leverage these benefits while solving the issues?

  10. FSO Issues/Disadvantages • Limited range (no waveguide, unlike fiber optics)‏ • Need line-of-sight (LOS)‏ • Any obstruction or poor weather (fog, heavy rain/snow) can increase BER in a bursty manner • Bigger issue: Need tight LOS alignment: • LOS alignment must be changed/maintained with mobility or sway! • Effects of relative distance and mobility Received power Spatial profile: ~ Gaussian drop off

  11. FSO Modules: Alignment Protocol • Goal: Provide an FSO link with “seamless” alignment • Steer the data transmission among the transceivers as the nodes move with respect to each other • Need a 3-way handshake among the transceivers to assure a bidirectional alignment

  12. FSO Modules: Alignment Protocol • Send “search” frames periodically • need an “alignment timer” • Receive data frames only after alignment is established • might still get wrong or erroneous frames – leave them to the higher layers Discard Discard Recv(SYN | SYN_ACK | DATA)‏ Recv(ACK, j)‏ Recv(ACK | DATA)‏ Not Aligned Sending SYN Sending SYN_ACK Target Node = i Recv(SYN, i)‏ Start Recv(ACK, i)‏ Alignment Timer Timeout Recv(SYN_ACK,i)‏ Recv(SYN, i)‏ Sending ACK Target Node = i Aligned Target Node = i Process Data Recv(DATA, i)‏ Recv(DATA, i)‏ Recv(SYN_ACK | ACK)‏ Recv(DATA, j)‏ Recv(SYN | SYN_ACK | ACK)‏ Recv(DATA, j)‏ Discard Discard State diagram of LOS alignment protocol

  13. FSO Modules: Alignment Protocol • Maintain “alignment lists” to keep track of which transceiver is aligned with which neighbor

  14. FSO Modules: Propagation & Interference • FSO Propagation • Geometric Attenuation • divergence angle • receiver’s surface • Atmospheric Attenuation • visibility • FSO Interference • Must consider the FSO signals coming from other nodes too

  15. FSO Simulations in NS-2 • How good/bad the transport performance will be if we have FSO nodes with • mobility • multiple transceivers? • Needed to add several things to NS-2 • multi-transceiver nodes • LOS alignment protocol • FSO propagation • obstacles

  16. TCP Throughput over FSO-MANETs • Performed several simulations..

  17. FSO Simulations in NS-2 • Propagation validation

  18. FSO Simulations in NS-2 • Propagation validation

  19. FSO Simulations in NS-2 • Propagation validation

  20. FSO Simulations in NS-2 Mobility is a major problem for throughput scaling! Nodes with wider divergence angle transceivers perform better due to resemblance to RF.

  21. FSO Simulations in NS-2

  22. FSO Simulations in NS-2

  23. Summary & Future Work • Contributed multi-transceiver simulation modules for free-space-optical communication. • Accurate simulation of multi-transceiver FSO structures reveals differences with RF in TCP behavior. • Intermittent connectivity pattern requires re-consideration of network layers to enable cross-layer buffering.

  24. THE END Thank you! Acknowledgments This work was supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation under awards 0721452 and 0721612 and DARPA under contract W31P4Q-08-C-0080

More Related